In Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016), the Ninth Circuit considered a UCL "unlawful" prong claim and a CLRA claim predicated on alleged violations of Vehicle Code section 11713.18, which is part of the "Car Buyer's Bill of Rights," enacted in 2005. That section prohibits a car dealer from describing a used car as "certified" unless the dealer provides the buyer with a "completed inspection report" prior to sale, and expressly makes any violation actionable under both the UCL and the CLRA:
A violation of this section is actionable under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Title 1.5 (commencing with Section 1750) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code), the Unfair Competition Law (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), Section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code, or any other applicable state or federal law. The rights and remedies provided by this section are cumulative and shall not be construed as restricting any right or remedy that is otherwise available.
Veh. Code § 11713.18(b). In other words, it adds an item to the CLRA's laundry list of deceptive conduct.
The panel reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in the dealer's favor, and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for the plaintiff instead. Slip op. at 9-22. The opinion delves deeply into the purpose and legislative history of the Car Buyer's Bill of Rights, and is worth a read for anyone handling litigation involving that Act.